Anthony Julius's Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England is an extraordinary book. Erudite, well-researched, subtle, it is a landmark work on a topic that has, until now, never produced a book-length study. Julius (who produced this 800-page book in his free time from his high-profile work as a lawyer) argues convincingly that English antisemitism, while in recent centuries generally milder than its continental versions, is nonetheless highly distinctive.

The problem, though, is that the book is unlikely to be read as any scholarly book should be: critically but carefully. In fact, I have a horrible feeling that for many (most?) readers the reactions to this book are likely to be predetermined in two important ways:

First, the book will be read like an issue of Playboy: the equivalent of the articles on classic cars – the majority of the book that deals with pre-second world war antisemitism – will be skipped as readers rush to the "juicy bits" that deal with contemporary anti-Zionist antisemitism.

Second, reactions to the chapters on anti-Zionist antisemitism are likely to be heavily polarised. Anti-Zionists and many other critics of Israel will dismiss much of it with the familiar accusation that Julius is simply using the accusation of antisemitism to cover up Israel's crimes. Defenders of Israel and Zionism, together with the "decent left", will see in Julius's work a damning dossier that confirms their worst opinions of anti-Zionists and critics of Israel.

I may be overly pessimistic, but in my experience debates about antisemitism are so angry that serious discussion of the subject is difficult. What I would argue though is that Trials of the Diaspora offers, for those who wish to take it, a valuable opportunity to begin just such a serious discussion. I'm not arguing that that discussion has to proceed either with the rejection or acceptance of Julius's thesis. Rather that, by seeing the book in the context of the wider antisemitism debate, we can assess the failings as well as the justifications for the positions that protagonists on all sides of the debate take – including Julius himself.

The strength of the book's treatment of anti-Zionist antisemitism lies in Julius's drawing out of the implications of many arguments made by critics of Israel. For example, he makes a convincing case for the appearance of tropes of blood libels and Jewish conspiracies in much anti-Israel discourse. By defining antisemitism so narrowly as to only include outright Nazism in the category and by reflexively dismissing charges of prejudice as attempts to defend Israel, there is widespread blindness among pro-Palestinian campaigners. There is a damning lack of imagination at work here – a deliberate lack of empathy to Jewish sensitivities.

Yet the limitation of Julius's argument is that he reproduces a similar lack of imagination and empathy. For one thing, he includes people and organisations in the anti-Zionist camp who have never explicitly articulated an anti-Zionist position. Independent Jewish Voices for example, which he treats as part of Jewish anti-Zionism, contains anti-Zionists but also left Zionists and non-Zionists in its coalition. As someone who has thought through the issues carefully, Julius assumes everyone else has too and ignores the swathes of ignorant pro-Palestinian activists who simply haven't followed through the implications of their argument to their anti-Zionist telos.

More seriously, Julius also appears to assume that anti-Zionism is necessarily antisemitic. I would agree that it often is: when an end to the Jewish state is demanded in the name of Palestinian nationalism, the preference for one national movement over another is at the very least inequitable. But what about anti-Zionisms that look towards a binational state? Again, the one-state solution is often simply a figleaf for Palestinian triumphalism and such "solutions" are indefensible. However, a serious one-state solution that requires the end of both Palestinian and Jewish nationalism, while it may not be practicable, cannot be so easily dismissed. Nationalism is, after all, a recent phenomenon and eminently open to criticism. The mutual failure of imagination rears its head again here: pro-Palestinian campaigners often cannot and will not imagine a one-state solution that isn't simply a coded form of oppression of Jews; pro-Israel campaigners cannot imagine something beyond Zionism that isn't a form of genocide.

The most difficult argument that Julius's book raises is that of Jewish and Israeli implication in antisemitism. The frequent pro-Palestinian blanket dismissal of accusations of antisemitism are hateful and hurtful and Trials of the Diaspora gives many examples of this. At the same time though, there is a wider problem of how Israel and antisemitism is talked about that simply cannot be ignored. The passions that the Israel-Palestine conflict raises are so intense that people on all sides have a tendency to use hyperbolic language. Further, Godwin's law – that online discussions will always end up in Nazi comparisons – is observed throughout contemporary discourse generally and if, say, animal rights protestors will accuse vivisectionists of being Nazis then it is hardly surprising that those talking about Israel-Palestine will also make such accusations. Some Jews and Israelis do indeed misuse accusations of antisemitism – but not because they are impossibly mendacious and trying to suppress debate, but because they are human beings as flawed as anyone else.

A real debate needs to happen about antisemitism. At the moment positions are so immobile and passions so inflamed that productive dialogue is difficult. Trials of the Diaspora could provide an important resource in opening up conversation if there is the will to do so. Pro-Palestinian campaigners and anti-Zionists who do not see themselves as antisemites need to look seriously at the arguments Julius makes. Zionists and those concerned about antisemitism need to look critically at the book and take on board the more subtle elements of Julius's book, rather than simply see it as further ammunition in an endless verbal war. Above all, Trials of the Diaspora should be read as a work of scholarship designed to stimulate serious thought, rather than fuel for a new round of polemics.

• Comments on this article will remain open for 24 hours from the time of publication but may be closed overnight